MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:    Password:

 
Civil War Commanders and Units
Author
Message
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5342

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/23/2019 9:30:51 PM

Surprisingly these historians pick Longstreet's wounding!? Check out the video & comment??

[Read More]

What say you?
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5342

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/30/2019 10:32:52 AM

Here is one perspective on the effect of Stonewall Jackson's loss!

[Read More]

What's your take on it?

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/30/2019 4:08:56 PM

What would you rather lose : your right arm or your warhorse ?

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/31/2019 11:26:48 AM

Of Gettysburg it was said “ Jackson was not there. “

Did Lee say that ?

If he did, then I think we have our answer, don’t you ?

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
Posts: 965

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/31/2019 12:11:00 PM

Phil,

Lee didn't say it.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country. "to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/31/2019 12:24:14 PM

John,

Somewhere those words have been written as a chapter heading in a volume on Lee. I can’t remember where I saw it. : possibly Southall Freeman or Dowdey. It was definitely about Gettysburg, and it conveyed the implication that Lee said it.


I must check.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
Posts: 965

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/31/2019 12:45:53 PM

Phil,

I believe it first appeared in a quote from a un-named officer in a Richmond newspaper.

But the thing is even if Lee said it, it doesn't come off as a slight to Longstreet but to Ewell and Hill who in effect replace Jackson.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country. "to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/31/2019 1:57:55 PM

John,

Once again it seems that memory has played me false ; or that I rely on fragments and impressions from books that I’ve read, as if clutching at straws.

But this I did find, in Southall Freeman’s Lee, volume III, page 161 :

And one afternoon, when he was out riding with Professor White, he said quietly If I had had Stonewall Jackson with me, so far as man can see, I should have won the battle of Gettysburg. That statement must stand. The darkest scene in the great drama of Gettysburg was enacted at Chancellorsville when Jackson fell.

It is no slight to Longstreet to argue that Jackson’s death was more fatal to the Confederacy than was Longstreet’s wounding .

I have to say that, when I watched that interesting discussion that Dave posted as a link, it seemed to me that the guys were being deliberately controversial - almost contrarian - in espousing the view that Longstreet’s wounding was the more serious blow to the South. Did they really mean it ; or were they just stirring up a controversy ? All honour to them , though.....it gives me pause to reconsider, and that is no bad thing.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
Posts: 965

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 7/31/2019 10:45:13 PM

Phil,

First the quote itself. There were at least three version of this published when it first came to the public with this being the least bombastic and most Lee like.(it even says so in Freeman's notes) There are two different men named White who supposedly became good friends with Lee after the war. Then there is when and where which is "out riding" and in the last months of his life but then we have quotes from his daughter Margaret that on their trip to visit the grave of her sister Annie who died during the war in North Carolina that he couldn't walk more than 30 feet without having to stop and rest. Then that the trip and all the attention took it out of him.

If Jackson is there and takes the high ground at the end of Day ` as I'm sure he would have yes Lee wins at Gettysburg but what does he win? Meade isn't going to fight he's going to retreat. So what does Lee win and what can he do so far from his source of reinforcement and resupply with 4 and maybe 5 chewed up divisions and a third less ammo.(remember they were just about out of ammo when they reached the Potomic at Falling Waters on the retreat)

If Longstreet rolls up Hancock he's into the supply trains and the AOP is going to lose hundreds of wagons and teams. Grant isn't going to be able to just do a flank march and start again because he's not going to have the transport for his supplies. If the AOP hasn't even come close to Petersburg with higher casualties is even the fall of Atlanta enough to win the election? If Lincoln loses in 64?
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country. "to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/1/2019 4:03:29 AM

John,

You present an interesting interpretation here.

What this amounts to is not so much the question as to whether Jackson or Longstreet were the more valuable to the Confederacy, as to whether the effects of a crushing rebel victory at the Wilderness were going to be more decisive than those won by a southern triumph at Gettysburg.

More a question of the hour, than of the man ?

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/1/2019 4:51:40 AM

John,

My God ! My God ! What will the country say ?

So Lincoln exclaimed after Chancellorsville.

Imagine a heavy defeat on home soil, at Gettysburg : what would the country say then ?

I take your point about Lee’s logistical predicament......it would be difficult to pursue and exploit.

Would that have been necessary ? The ramifications of such a defeat on Lincoln’s presidency would in themselves have been enough, I suspect , to put the administration in existential crisis, especially when those riots broke out in New York.

Counter factual scenario : Jackson lives, the yankees are driven from the field, Lee withdraws to Virginia with fewer than ten thousand casualties instead of twenty five thousand : no PPT debacle, a humiliating yankee defeat on Union soil.....what a statement to send out to the world !

I won’t even begin to imagine what a bigger detachment sent out West might achieve : I’m sure you’ll jump on me and tell me that Bragg would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ! Chickamauga magnified...what a thought !

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
Posts: 965

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/1/2019 8:13:14 AM

Phil,

There is a quote from one of Lee's sons from after the war that he told them about Gettysburg that goes something like "I believed so much in the ability of the men that I set impossible tasks for them to achieve." That I whole heartedly believe Lee said and believed.

Do you really think a man who thought that would be satisfied enough with the results of Day 1 to walk away and go home?

You don't become a great commander who we study and discuss by only fighting when all the odds are in your favor and by going strictly by the book but every great commander has his Gettysburg or Cold harbor or Alesia or El Alimain because without their willingness to go against the odds and think outside of the box we wouldn't be calling them great and discussing them.

If Jackson was alive maybe its him that goes out West. Maybe Jackson and Forrest together would have shot Bragg.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country. "to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/1/2019 8:30:47 AM

John,

That’s a challenging reply....do I really think that Lee would have been content to walk away, content with the outcome of a triumphant day one ? No, he wouldn’t.....but the team of Jackson/Longstreet/Lee ( I’d better omit Stuart ! ) is going to operate more wisely than Lee did, deprived as he was of his right arm and the chemistry of the excellent previous teamwork that had sustained and prevailed in previous crises.

Lee suffered from the lack of a decent staff at Gettysburg. His health had deteriorated, his impulsive nature got the better of him, and Longstreet’s demeanour might have compounded the difficulties. I really do believe that Jackson, eccentric and difficult though he was, had some kind of calming influence on Lee. Apart from the tactical prowess that would secure the heights to the south of Gettysburg , I reckon the peculiar impact of his personality was bound to be every bit as important as the performance on the field.

I like to think about this kind of thing : many a time in my own life, I’ve sought reassurance from the company of certain people who - for whatever reason - have enhanced my confidence and enabled me to work better.
When those people have not been around me, I stumbled.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
Posts: 965

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/1/2019 1:32:50 PM

Phil,

The "chemistry" was going to be altered no matter because all the evidence available points to Lee going to 3 Corps no matter Jackson's death or not. With Jackson alive there are new problems to the "chemistry" within the leadership in the corps and divisions depending on if its Hill or Ewell to command the new Corps.

I also have to disagree to the implication that the ANVA would have been better prepared when the "crisis" came if Jackson had been there. The "crisis" is when Buford is waiting for Harry Heath with the ANVA not yet concentrated. Jackson wouldn't have been against spreading out the army to gather the bounty of PA and spread the fear of God. In fact with him pushing it might be farther spread out. He wouldn't have been present to stop Heath from going to look for shoes. And it wasn't going to be his spy bringing the news that the AOP was a lot closer than believed to start a concentration. He might have arrested Iverson and O'Neil on the spot and chewed out Rhodes. Now if we are talking Days 2 & 3 I'm not sure there is much he could do. Rhodes and Early are pretty chewed up so Johnson is his only offensive force and he's not going to get Hood and Pickett on the field any earlier. Could have had held what Johnson had captured on Day 2?

Lee suffer from an inadequate staff since he took command to the day he surrendered the army. His health had been bad since before Sharpsburg. And with respect he didn't spend that much time around Jackson. It was Longstreet who's tents were pitched close on the march, who's HDQ was close in camp and who's campfire he visited most if he wanted to talk.

I hear what your saying I just think that Jackson isn't that guy for Lee.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country. "to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
Posts: 2255

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/1/2019 2:07:11 PM

I wouldn`t be putting much faith in Douglass Southall Freeman. Freeman was an unabashed Virginian who felt that the sun set with Lee and Jackson. Hell, he has Lee expecting an early attack from Longstreet on day 2...even though Lee himself had given permission for Longstreet to await Evander Law`s brigade.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
Posts: 965

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/1/2019 3:25:30 PM

Morris,

That comes from I believe a post war Gov of Maryland and his very questionable report of a conversation with Lee and I believe in the notes at least Freeman does point out that it isn't accepted as reliable by all. Yes there is a VA bias but in all honesty I think he is a great base/starting point for those who want to learn about the ANVA and Lee.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country. "to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/2/2019 5:04:12 AM

John,

Would there have been a day two, let alone a day three, if Jackson had been there ?

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
Posts: 965

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/2/2019 7:56:43 AM

Phil,

If he's there is 2nd Corps even more dispersed because he's pushed the march? Or is there even a battle there because he's pushed the march to concentrate and one of his divisions goes in with Heth and they overwhelm Buford before any infantry can come up? This is the problem with what ifs.


----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country. "to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
Posts: 965

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/2/2019 8:02:39 AM

Hey Phil and Morris and anybody else since we are talking Lee and Jackson here's a question. So how much of the concept/plan of the Valley Campaign is Lee and how much Jackson?
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country. "to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/2/2019 9:56:32 AM

Quote:
Phil,

If he's there is 2nd Corps even more dispersed because he's pushed the march? Or is there even a battle there because he's pushed the march to concentrate and one of his divisions goes in with Heth and they overwhelm Buford before any infantry can come up? This is the problem with what ifs.



John,

For all his Old Testament fury, Jackson was a sagacious warrior, and, in my mind’s eye, I see him prevailing upon Lee and persuading him to withdraw while he’s ahead.

Longstreet was unable to do this : I think Jackson could.

What the outcome of the initial encounter might have been is, of course , anybody’s guess.....but I reckon it was not going to be a good day at the office for Meade.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
Posts: 2255

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/2/2019 4:23:42 PM

John, I would say that the concept was Lee`s, who saw an opportunity for an operation of maneuver, if utilized with "great speed" and a force kept "light" to keep the federals in the valley away from McClellan. A concept of Lee`s that was executed by Jackson with great attention to detail...right down to explicit directions for the process of march.

Respects, Morris


----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
Posts: 2255

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/5/2019 9:13:53 AM

The "what if gambit" spirals out in all directions, like water from the impact of a thrown rock.

If Longstreet is not struck down..then the flank attack on Hancock is pressed hard...the way Longstreet always followed up an attack. The damage done could have made Grant`s overland campaign even more stalled out than it would become anyway. What does that potentially mean?

Down in North Georgia, Sherman`s goal is not the capture of Atlanta, nor even the destruction of the railroads, or of the Army of Tennessee, his sole responsibility is to so occupy Johnston`s AOT as to render it incapable of providing reinforcements to Lee`s AONV. Indeed, it was only after he would receive the word from Grant`s stalled overland campaign, ( Petersburg) where Grant tells him to do what he must to achieve a victory on that front, that Sherman alters his objective. If Sherman is compelled to "force the issue" much sooner than he did, he may have committed the type of errors that even Johnston could not fail to take advantage of...and long before crossing the Chattahoochee, where the option of maneuver for Johnston`s army are severely limited.

The absence of Longstreet for the majority of Grant`s operation is a blow that can not be mediated. There is no doubt that, with Lee ill, AP Hill ill(as usual) and Ewell being Ewell being Ewell, the presence of Longstreet at North Anna River may well have made the difference in springing the trap that Lee had seen, and determined to take advantage of, to hammer one of two divided wings of the AOP. But, Longstreet was not there, and there was no one else.

Respects, Morris


----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 3998

Whose wounding was more fatal to the Confederacy, Jackson, or Longstreet??
Posted on: 8/5/2019 1:24:19 PM

Morris,

This has certainly got me thinking.

Let me confess that I would have considered Jackson’s death as the pre-eminent misfortune to befall the South when it comes to the importance of individual military prowess.

Longstreet’s wounding never made the same impact on my perception of the course of the war.

Now I’m wobbling.

As you say, Lee was desperate to hit Grant in the period between Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor.

We must strike them a blow ! he railed as he lay stricken with diarrhoea ....to no avail. A chance was lost when the yankees were in a vulnerable predicament straddling a river. Longstreet was not there : the absence of one of the hardest hitting generals in American military annals was of inestimable importance at that juncture.

I have always been shocked by the dimension of the Union casualty list in the Wilderness . Some commentators have been remarkably complacent about the prodigality of that fighting, and, in a kind of statistical spin, have argued that Grant’s generalship compares favourably with Lee’s - and with other generals’ - when it comes to loss of life sustained. I find that preposterous when I survey the yankee death toll from the 5th and 6th of May : not only was the number immense, it also amounted to more than double the rebel fatalities, despite the fact that there was plenty of offensive action on the part of Lee’s men. I have to surmise that, had Longstreet not been struck down by friendly fire, the advantage was bound to be more cast in Lee’s favour . This was a much more lopsided fight than Chancellorsville, fought over the same ground one year earlier . The balance of loss was more weighted against the North in the 1864 battle ; the presence of Longstreet impinged here ; apart from the respective casualties, the impact on morale and on Grant’s strategic resolve, in the event of exploitation by an unscathed Longstreet, is certainly worthy of speculation.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

© 2019 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC